Perky DEFEATED in Oldham County Court 12 MAY 08 ***won on 2nd Hearing ***

[My Real Name]

This victory is significant as its the one EVERYONE on here and PePiPoo said could never be done

No they didn't.

CAG/PePiPoo defence

Is a straw man term that you appear to have invented.

 

to us it was a jolly - the money not important

You'll be taking up andy_foster's challenge for sure then.

 

As someone on another site said "some you win, some you lose"

But you said "PePiPoo said could never be done". At least keep it consistent.

 

I can only say that from the real statistics

Why rely on another person to provide the evidence for your claim? The statistics are in your favour, after all

[Steve__M]

I'm sure lamma will correct me if I'm wrong, but his figures suggested maybe 10 or 20 apparent court victories. So that's about one for each hundred people who come here, and one for each of the 10s of thousands of pieces of paper stuck to windscreens.

 

What would you do if offered a bet of either pay £65 or risk 10000 to 1 odds that you will have to pay £250?

[angry_driver]

Mr_Real_Name

I will not be taking up Andy Fosters offer for a number of reasons, we only issue parking charges to vehicles in contravention not on 'demand'.

If we issued a ticket with the intention of going straight to court it could (and probarly would) be seen as an abuse of process - Courts are not the place to bring actions just to prove a point, thats not a game we want to start playing

Even if we did it would goto the small claims court, He might win, We might win ... but how does that take us any further ??? It doesn't ... We have already won a CAG/PePiPoo defence .. how many will it take before we prove it 2,3,4,50,100 ... there will always be some lame excuse as to why it failed, exactly what is happening with this one.

 

We took on the Thomas case after it was clear that CAG/PePiPoo were involved .. we could have backed down and called the action off ... we didnt ... We saw it through to the very end and won.

 

 

Steve_M

I think you generalise too much, there are a few parking companies who NEVER take anyone to court and there are some that do - you need to make the difference that with the ones that do take people to court when talking about statistics.

 

The problem has always been with sites like this, you get a few individuals who tell everyone the same advice without listening to the reasons for the ticket - they say "ignore" "theyre unenforceable".

 

Whereas the full situation should be listened to and the PPC involved considered - that doesnt happen as the blinkered view of a few overrule these sites.

 

In this case .. Mr Thomas parked and took the chance, the signs were clear and he got a parking charge, exactly what it said on the signage... now this is TOTALLY different from parking at midnight outside your own house and forgetting to put a permit in your car whilst parked in your space.

 

PRE-CLOSING

 

Combined Parking Solutions has very few complaints and appeals compared with certain other companies (check this and other online forums) ... this could be down to the fact they do not deal with free/open carparks do not employ wardens who pounce after 2mins and although its probarly not beleived by posters the appeals process does work.

 

If an appeal is received and its genuine, the ticket is cancelled - as we have a policy of taking matters to court then why waste time/effort on something with no merit .. Thats why we get few complaints and even in this one case, you have to be honest and say the site is well signed and he parked next to a sign, walked past it etc...

 

IN CLOSING

 

I think we should await the other side to put their viewpoint on what happened ... until then nothing else to be said before it gets into a slanging match (I see PePiPoo have already stared to resort to personal insults, which clearly shows they have nothing more constructive to add - Once personal insults start the battle has been lost ... Lets not lower ourselves to the other sites standards). - Although the mods did warn them in fairness.

Edited October 15, 2008 by angry_driver

[lamma]

I did not make an Freedom of Information Act to HMCS for CPS but I do have the figures. they are already posted here. I have no idea how many relate to private land as opposed to public car parks. Chronicle Online-Parking penalty just, judge rules from which I quote two sections. "Mike Perkins, from CPS, said the day the charge was issued, Mr Thomas had accessed a consumer internet site outlining the incident and asking for help" so beware what you post. i.e admit nothing, never forget that in a civil case the burden is upon the claimant. Always best to use words such as 'A PPC invoice was placed on my vehicle'. "Speaking after the hearing, Mr Perkins said: “This is a landmark hearing." A new definition of landmark must be pending. Does Perky have any legal qualifications does anybody know ? I can't see how as he calls this a 'landmark ruling'.

[Fair-Parking]

Angry Driver. Posts 141 and 145, - you're goading again.

 

I'm sure that people have absorbed the news of the judgment, so it's difficult to see just how you can add anything new to this thread that either isn't going to be repeated or which are unlikely to be further expressions of goading.

 

May I respectfully suggest that you re-evaluate the objective here? You have made your main point quite clear, but just where is this argument taking you now? People on this forum aren't going to change their minds and nor are they going to hold back their dislike of your industry and dare I say it - you. Indeed I would imagine that the more you post the more you are harming your own credibility.

 

It's time to call a halt to what is becoming a tiresome and unconvincing dictum based more on your untenable superior attitude over the forum members as a whole, rather than the fact that you are seemingly unable to appreciate that your news has long run it's inevitable short lived course.

[angela-27]

It's time to call a halt to what is becoming a tiresome and unconvincing dictum based more on your untenable superior attitude over the forum members as a whole

 

I second that. No one appreciates being spoken down to.

[angry_driver]

MODS:

 

I agree with some of that Fair Parking states in post #156

 

Can I ask that the non relevant posts after my original request to end the debate (post #154) be deleted and the thread locked - this will hopefully stop it getting into a free for all.

 

Please could the mods send a note to stethomas & his 'legaladviser' advising them the reasons for locking thread and if they want to add their events (if different) then yoy can reopen.

[angela-27]

MODS:

Can I ask that the non relevant posts after my original request to end the debate (post #154) be deleted and the thread locked

 

i understand that you have been online all day, responding to comments. if you want to go offline then do so, your fingers must be sore from all the typing. but don't request for the thread to be locked just because you don't wish it to be active whilst you are not online to respond to every comment as it comes.

[angry_driver]

Come on Angela ... try and keep up.

 

The reason for requesting the thread to be locked is nothing constructive can be added by any other party at this stage, with the exception of the other side.

 

These threads have a tendancy to go a little wild once the facts have been established so I just want to keep to the facts ...

[My Real Name]

MODS:

 

I agree with some of that Fair Parking states in post #156

 

Can I ask that the non relevant posts after my original request to end the debate (post #154) be deleted and the thread locked - this will hopefully stop it getting into a free for all.

 

Please could the mods send a note to stethomas & his 'legaladviser' advising them the reasons for locking thread and if they want to add their events (if different) then yoy can reopen.

Don't be ridiculous. Any of the above sets an absurd precedent.

[MrShed]

MODS:

 

I agree with some of that Fair Parking states in post #156

 

Can I ask that the non relevant posts after my original request to end the debate (post #154) be deleted and the thread locked - this will hopefully stop it getting into a free for all.

 

Please could the mods send a note to stethomas & his 'legaladviser' advising them the reasons for locking thread and if they want to add their events (if different) then yoy can reopen.

 

Why lock the thread? Just because you feel "nothing constructive" can be added, does not mean that you should decide that the issue is not discussed.

[angry_driver]

OK ... Well I will leave you all to it then.

 

If Stethomas or his legaladviser comments then I will respond, but until then there is nothing else I can add -

 

Have fun all discussing it between yourselves and I am sure you will all end up convincing yourself it was a one off and will never happen again (ah well, what life must be like with a blinkered view !!)

[MrShed]

I hope you do leave us to it, as your completely personal blinkered view that the defences were groundless, when in fact it can be shown in law that they are not, does not exactly lead to constructive debate.

[angry_driver]

I hope you do leave us to it, as your completely personal blinkered view that the defences were groundless, when in fact it can be shown in law that they are not, does not exactly lead to constructive debate.

 

Obviously they were groundless in this case as the Judge dismissed them - They were NOT shown to have any grounds in law and thats why the case was lost.

 

This is not my view but the view of a highly experienced judge who spent 3.5hrs on it !!

 

I am not blinkered, just real - I know some tickets are worthless and would not stand up ... I also know some are when correctly issued - Anyway ending there ... Have a nice evening !

[MrShed]

Not correct I am afraid. The judge has decided, based upon his EDUCATED opinion, that the arguments in this case were not valid. Whether or not we feel he made a mistake is neither here nor there(I think he did, but apparently that would be "blinkered" also). But the judges opinion is nothing but that - an opinion. Therefore, this does not mean that there were no grounds, but that THIS JUDGE decided there wasnt. totally different.

[andy_foster]

Mr_Real_Name

I will not be taking up Andy Fosters offer for a number of reasons, we only issue parking charges to vehicles in contravention not on 'demand'.

If we issued a ticket with the intention of going straight to court it could (and probarly would) be seen as an abuse of process - Courts are not the place to bring actions just to prove a point, thats not a game we want to start playing

Even if we did it would goto the small claims court, He might win, We might win ... but how does that take us any further ??? It doesn't ... We have already won a CAG/PePiPoo defence .. how many will it take before we prove it 2,3,4,50,100 ... there will always be some lame excuse as to why it failed, exactly what is happening with this one.

 

Hmm, you tune seems to have changed somewhat since you posted this on PePiPoo

 

The appeal is £100 .. I am sure with the funds of PePiPoo you can scrape that togehter and put in the appeal ... it will the goto CirCuit Judge ... The PPC (and I am sure the 'eagles') think they have a good case, so depending on the outcome there is a good chance this could goto the Court of Appeal and settle the PPC argument once and for all.

 

In earlier debates members of this site and CAG have said "An appeal to which we have not been involved in the original case is difficult" .. Well in this case YOU HAVE .. So an appeal on a LEGAL issue is simple .....

 

The gauntlet is down to you PePiPoo and members ... stand up and be counted if you honestly beleive in yourselves ... this is a GOLDEN chance to possibly close down all PPC companies (on the other hand its a golden chance for the courts to rule the charges are correct).

 

Are you going to back what you preach or back down like spineless idiots !!! ... You have 14days .. the time is ticking !!

Neither PePiPoo as a site or any of it's individual members (except Mr Thomas if he is a member) can claim an interest in the case, and therefore cannot appeal the decision, but we are accused of being 'spineless idiots' if we don't appeal.

Other than tracking down Mr Thomas, who could be one of Perky's mates for all I know, and twisting his arm, the only way I can appeal a judgment in a PPC case is if I'm party to that case.

I offered to take angry_driver/oldham99 up on his offer by parking at one of his sites, and receiving one of his fake parking tickets, but apparently he doesn't like the idea.

 

If we (at PePiPoo, either collectively or individually) are 'spineless idiots' for failing to appeal a case that we have no rights to appeal, what does that make angry_driver for refusing 'my offer' - which was nothing more than the only viable way to take him on on his own offer?

[by the way, that was a rhetorical question]

[gwc1000]

I have to say that I find it incredible that angry driver criticises regular posters on here and calls into question their depth of legal knowledge, and claims to be fully legally trained, however, when his own wife was recently issued with a FPN his first port of call was to register on CAG on 28th September and on the same day he started a thread asking these same experts here for advice on how to fight his wife's ticket. Talk about double standards!

I note that yesterday he re-visited that thread and has heavily edited it.

[tiglet]

Lol!

[Michael Browne]

I note that yesterday he re-visited that thread and has heavily edited it.

More interesting is the time he edited them, circa 16.58. First post of the Oldham win - 17.04!!

[tiglet]

Perhaps someone should notify the Oldham Chronicle about that?

 

Happy to use these forums for us own purposes, but quickly dismisses them when it no longer suits.

[lamma]

MODS:

 

I agree with some of that Fair Parking states in post #156

 

Can I ask that the non relevant posts after my original request to end the debate (post #154) be deleted and the thread locked - this will hopefully stop it getting into a free for all.

 

Please could the mods send a note to stethomas & his 'legaladviser' advising them the reasons for locking thread and if they want to add their events (if different) then yoy can reopen.

 

I believe my post #155 to be very relevant and to contain good advice. No one has complained about it...

[Eurovision]

I have to say that I find it incredible that angry driver criticises regular posters on here and calls into question their depth of legal knowledge, and claims to be fully legally trained, however, when his own wife was recently issued with a FPN his first port of call was to register on CAG on 28th September and on the same day he started a thread asking these same experts here for advice on how to fight his wife's ticket. Talk about double standards!

I note that yesterday he re-visited that thread and has heavily edited it.

Nice find gwc.

 

Have a look at the original posts here:

 

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:316IAZnN9ggJ:www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/161876-fixed-penalty-offence-code.html+%22angry_driver%22+fpn+uk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

 

Has Perky got any credibility left?

[WebFerret]

'angry driver',

 

You stated in your original post that, to quote: "I will answer openly any questions you may have.", yet to date you have ignored many key questions asked of you:

 

Q1) 'Simon7685' - "I was wondering how you would know someone had read their PM's, I thought that is what they were private?"

 

Q2) 'Bookworm' - "How much profit is the PPC going to actually make from this?" - "what is the profit in it? In pounds? Doesn't have to be precise, a ball park will do."?

 

Q3) 'AI27' - "How much do you charge for a permit on said bit of land? Or are they freely given out by the church?"

 

Q4) 'lamma' - "As asked by someone else - but the question was soundly ignored. How on earth can you know that he read PMs ?"

 

Then your quote (post #160) states: "The reason for requesting the thread to be locked is nothing constructive can be added by any other party at this stage, with the exception of the other side." – this is not true, for I would very much like to know your answers to these important questions you have not yet answered.

 

 

Then in your post #154, you state, quote:

"Courts are not the place to bring actions just to prove a point, thats not a game we want to start playing".

 

and yet you stated in post #99, to quote:

"This case was NOT about the money, it was to show that parking charges (IF issued correctly with the correct signage etc..) are perfectly valid and legal DESPITE the 'park anywhere, get lots of tickets and screw them brigade' saying they are unenforceable invoices with the correct defence."

 

and again in your post #139, to quote:

"As for the money, this wasnt ever about the money it was to prove a fact that despite the best CAG/PePiPoo brains behind the defence tickets ARE enforceable and the courts do enforce them."

 

and again in your post #145, to quote:

"This victory is significant as its the one EVERYONE on here and PePiPoo said could never be done (ie, a good defence crafted by our experts will always see them off as all these tickets are unenforceable)."

 

and again in your post #154, to quote:

"We have already won a CAG/PePiPoo defence ... how many will it take before we prove it 2,3,4,50,100 ... We took on the Thomas case after it was clear that CAG/PePiPoo were involved .. we could have backed down and called the action off ... we didnt ... We saw it through to the very end and won."

 

This to me is all evidence to suggest that you are indeed out to simply prove a point and that you are playing!!

 

 

You also stated (post #145):

"What has been proved, and it cant be denied as it happend - The CAG/PePiPoo defence FAILED on all counts - it was stated in many many threads this could not happen and it did." - I would like to see the transcript of the 'defence' to know if this statement is true and correct before I simply take your word for it!

 

Then you quote (post #145):

"No matter what spin you want to put on it, the defendant is £250 out of pocket .. .he was off work for 1.5days (he obviously cant afford to be off work, to us it was a jolly - the money not important)" - This apparent gloating, in my view, simply does nothing more than enforce 'Joe publics' current general negative opinion of PPC's and further damages your own reputation.

 

Furthermore, from your gloating and confirmation that "Courts are not the place to bring actions just to prove a point", I'm sure, that in hindsight, the Judge may well now be wondering if he made a sound judgement or not! - and thus possibly damaging any defence you may produce against an appeal if one is indeed lodged!

 

 

Then there is your quote (post #128'): "The PPC wants this to goto appeal but so far nothing has been heard or seen from the defendant" - (another point to prove?) - I don't know if you’re a religious person, but with reference to the church site, it could be said that God does move in mysterious ways! - in other words your apparent assumption of success to an appeals process is by no means guaranteed.

Edited October 15, 2008 by WebFerret

[gwc1000]

I note that yesterday he re-visited that thread and has heavily edited it.

 

I see that some clever soul has posted the unedited version of the thread over on Pepipoo.

For someone who once posted that he enjoys seeing tears run down the face of somebody he has just ticketed, he doesn't seem to like the taste of his own medicine:grin:

[MrShed]

I do believe that the phrase is "hoisted by your own petard"

 

Well done Webferret